Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

nanos ARE micros

Expand Messages
  • Ed & Julie Nelson
    Just a question for the group: Why have most people stop listing nanos under the micro size? Groundspeak adamantly states they will not make a new size
    Message 1 of 10 , Aug 8, 2011
    • 0 Attachment

      Just a question for the group:

      Why have most people stop listing nanos under the "micro" size?

      Groundspeak adamantly states they will not make a new size category for nanos, since they are covered under the micro description. Nanos are micros.

      I filter out micros, but when nanos are left as "Size: ? other" (the size is not chosen, or intentionally left as 'other') they don't get filtered.

      Is there a reason not to list them as micros on the cache page?

      Ed

       

    • Anthony Guzzi
      ... I think it might be people wanting to make their hide that much more difficult by not saying the size. OR it could be the people actually rebelling against
      Message 2 of 10 , Aug 8, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        On 8/8/2011 9:57 PM, Ed & Julie Nelson wrote:
        > Just a question for the group:
        >
        > Why have most people stop listing nanos under the "micro" size?
        >
        > Groundspeak adamantly states they will not make a new size category for
        > nanos, since they are covered under the micro description. Nanos are micros.
        >
        > I filter out micros, but when nanos are left as "Size: ? other" (the
        > size is not chosen, or intentionally left as 'other') they don't get
        > filtered.
        >
        > Is there a reason not to list them as micros on the cache page?


        I think it might be people wanting to make their hide that much more
        difficult by not saying the size.

        OR

        it could be the people actually rebelling against what groundspeak says
        and insisting that nanos are not actually micros, and neither side will
        blink.
      • JeoMc5@aol.com
        neither side will blink. Nice pun, especially since the nanos were originally blinkers ;) Jeo ... From: Anthony Guzzi To: nuts_
        Message 3 of 10 , Aug 9, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          "neither side will  blink."
           
          Nice pun, especially since the nanos were originally blinkers ;)
           
          Jeo




          -----Original Message-----
          From: Anthony Guzzi <dukeofurl@...>
          To: nuts_ <nuts_@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Mon, Aug 8, 2011 11:44 pm
          Subject: Re: [NUTS] nanos ARE micros

           
          On 8/8/2011 9:57 PM, Ed & Julie Nelson wrote:
          > Just a question for the group:
          >
          > Why have most people stop listing nanos under the "micro" size?
          >
          > Groundspeak adamantly states they will not make a new size category for
          > nanos, since they are covered under the micro description. Nanos are micros.
          >
          > I filter out micros, but when nanos are left as "Size: ? other" (the
          > size is not chosen, or intentionally left as 'other') they don't get
          > filtered.
          >
          > Is there a reason not to list them as micros on the cache page?

          I think it might be people wanting to make their hide that much more
          difficult by not saying the size.

          OR

          it could be the people actually rebelling against what groundspeak says
          and insisting that nanos are not actually micros, and neither side will
          blink.
        • Anthony Guzzi
          ... I didn t even think about that, but you re right. I ve heard nanos called Blinkers several times. The pun wasn t intended, but couldn t have been better.
          Message 4 of 10 , Aug 9, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            On 8/9/2011 1:20 AM, JeoMc5@... wrote:
            > "neither side will blink."
            > Nice pun, especially since the nanos were originally blinkers ;)
            > Jeo



            I didn't even think about that, but you're right. I've heard nanos
            called Blinkers several times. The pun wasn't intended, but couldn't
            have been better.
          • thrak@pacbell.net
            It seems to have become the fashion to not list the cache size. I don t like it but there s not much one can do about it. I figure the point of the cache is
            Message 5 of 10 , Aug 9, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              It seems to have become "the fashion" to not list the cache size. I don't like it but there's not much one can do about it. I figure the point of the cache is for people to find it but I seem to be "old fashioned" in that regard. I also still like ammo cans whereas the current trend is for caches that can't even hold a small travel bug. It's trends of this sort that caused a number of the "seasoned cachers" (read old farts who used to be very active geocachers) to slack off to an alarming degree.

              On 8/8/2011 9:57 PM, Ed & Julie Nelson wrote:
               

              Just a question for the group:

              Why have most people stop listing nanos under the "micro" size?

              Groundspeak adamantly states they will not make a new size category for nanos, since they are covered under the micro description. Nanos are micros.

              I filter out micros, but when nanos are left as "Size: ? other" (the size is not chosen, or intentionally left as 'other') they don't get filtered.

              Is there a reason not to list them as micros on the cache page?

              Ed

               

            • Chaz I
              I ll second that...!!! People put Nano s in Speceville too; plenty of room all over for much larger caches but nooo. I thought about it a good two minutes and
              Message 6 of 10 , Aug 9, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                I'll second that...!!!
                People put Nano's in Speceville too; plenty of room all over for much larger caches but nooo.
                I thought about it a good two minutes and realized what was causing it throughout the whole game though.
                Too lazy to pack a decent cache or spend the time finding a hiding spot that was anything less creative than a Nano on a park bench.
                 
                Chaz


                From: "thrak@..." <thrak@...>
                To: nuts_@yahoogroups.com
                Cc: Ed & Julie Nelson <nelson143@...>
                Sent: Tue, August 9, 2011 4:57:32 PM
                Subject: Re: [NUTS] nanos ARE micros

                 

                It seems to have become "the fashion" to not list the cache size. I don't like it but there's not much one can do about it. I figure the point of the cache is for people to find it but I seem to be "old fashioned" in that regard. I also still like ammo cans whereas the current trend is for caches that can't even hold a small travel bug. It's trends of this sort that caused a number of the "seasoned cachers" (read old farts who used to be very active geocachers) to slack off to an alarming degree.

                On 8/8/2011 9:57 PM, Ed & Julie Nelson wrote:
                 

                Just a question for the group:

                Why have most people stop listing nanos under the "micro" size?

                Groundspeak adamantly states they will not make a new size category for nanos, since they are covered under the micro description. Nanos are micros.

                I filter out micros, but when nanos are left as "Size: ? other" (the size is not chosen, or intentionally left as 'other') they don't get filtered.

                Is there a reason not to list them as micros on the cache page?

                Ed

                 

              • badge_butterfly
                I m not bashing micros...that s a dead horse I won t beat. But if you hide a nano, call it a micro on the cache details (it IS a micro). Don t leave it
                Message 7 of 10 , Aug 9, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  I'm not bashing micros...that's a dead horse I won't beat.
                  But if you hide a nano, call it a micro on the cache details (it IS a micro). Don't leave it uncategorized in the description so those of us who don't look for micros can ignore it.
                  Thank you!!
                  Ed



                  --- In nuts_@yahoogroups.com, Chaz I <utchaz@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > I'll second that...!!!
                  > People put Nano's in Speceville too; plenty of room all over for much larger
                  > caches but nooo.
                  > I thought about it a good two minutes and realized what was causing it
                  > throughout the whole game though.
                  > Too lazy to pack a decent cache or spend the time finding a hiding spot that was
                  > anything less creative than a Nano on a park bench.
                  >
                  > Chaz
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > ________________________________
                  > From: "thrak@..." <thrak@...>
                  > To: nuts_@yahoogroups.com
                  > Cc: Ed & Julie Nelson <nelson143@...>
                  > Sent: Tue, August 9, 2011 4:57:32 PM
                  > Subject: Re: [NUTS] nanos ARE micros
                  >
                  >  
                  > It seems to have become "the fashion" to not list the cache size. I don't like
                  > it but there's not much one can do about it. I figure the point of the cache is
                  > for people to find it but I seem to be "old fashioned" in that regard. I also
                  > still like ammo cans whereas the current trend is for caches that can't even
                  > hold a small travel bug. It's trends of this sort that caused a number of the
                  > "seasoned cachers" (read old farts who used to be very active geocachers) to
                  > slack off to an alarming degree.
                  >
                  > On 8/8/2011 9:57 PM, Ed & Julie Nelson wrote:
                  >  
                  > >Just a question for the group:
                  > >Why have most people stop listing nanos under the "micro" size?
                  > >Groundspeak adamantly states they will not make a new size category for nanos,
                  > >since they are covered under the micro description. Nanos are micros.
                  > >I filter out micros, but when nanos are left as "Size: ? other" (the size is not
                  > >chosen, or intentionally left as 'other') they don't get filtered.
                  > >Is there a reason not to list them as micros on the cache page?
                  > >Ed
                  > > 
                  >
                • Anthony Guzzi
                  ... Just because Groundspeak says that nanos are micros does not make it so, and most people I think would agree with that sentiment.
                  Message 8 of 10 , Aug 10, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 8/9/2011 8:11 PM, badge_butterfly wrote:
                    > I'm not bashing micros...that's a dead horse I won't beat.
                    > But if you hide a nano, call it a micro on the cache details (it IS a
                    > micro). Don't leave it uncategorized in the description so those of us
                    > who don't look for micros can ignore it.
                    > Thank you!!
                    > Ed
                    >


                    Just because Groundspeak says that nanos are micros does not make it so,
                    and most people I think would agree with that sentiment.
                  • Courtney Calkins
                    Hello, As a hider, the problem I often run into is that the entire cache that I hide is often much larger than a nano or a micro. I build caches that are
                    Message 9 of 10 , Aug 10, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment

                      Hello,

                       

                      As a hider, the problem I often run into is that the “entire cache” that I hide is often much larger than a nano or a micro.  I build caches that are fairly large, but many times there is only room for a log. For instance I just had a hide that was 4-5 inches long but it cannot hold anything but the log…. (size??)  I told Bobolu the size of the cache and it actually threw him off.  I can think of one cache I hid and it was 18 inches long and 5-6 inches wide, but could only hold a log, so I left the size blank.  I don’t hide “typical” caches, so I don’t know how to accurately describe the cache.  When I am not sure, I leave the SIZE blank.

                       

                      So I’m not trying to distract or trick people, but many times I  don’t know what the “fair” description would be of my caches would be.

                       

                      Seeking clarity,

                       

                      .Quad  (aka Courtney)

                       

                       

                      Thanks,

                      Courtney CC Calkins, LMFT

                      (530)893-4245

                       

                      CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail transmission, and any documents or messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, then you are (1) notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, saving, reading or use of this information is strictly prohibited, (2) requested to discard and delete this e-mail and any attachments, and (3) requested to immediately notify us by e-mail that you mistakenly received this message Courtney@...  fax (530) 879-3712 or telephone (530) 893-4245.  Thank you.

                       

                    • thrak
                      That s because you re a WEIRDO! ... I enjoy your caches Courtney. There is, however, a current propensity for LOTS of folks to list their caches with an
                      Message 10 of 10 , Aug 10, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        That's because you're a WEIRDO! :-D

                        I enjoy your caches Courtney. There is, however, a current propensity for LOTS of folks to list their caches with an unknown size when it really isn't the type of case you describe. I can see having a problem settling on a size for some of your hides.

                        On 8/10/2011 1:22 PM, Courtney Calkins wrote:  

                        Hello,

                         

                        As a hider, the problem I often run into is that the “entire cache” that I hide is often much larger than a nano or a micro.  I build caches that are fairly large, but many times there is only room for a log. For instance I just had a hide that was 4-5 inches long but it cannot hold anything but the log…. (size??)  I told Bobolu the size of the cache and it actually threw him off.  I can think of one cache I hid and it was 18 inches long and 5-6 inches wide, but could only hold a log, so I left the size blank.  I don’t hide “typical” caches, so I don’t know how to accurately describe the cache.  When I am not sure, I leave the SIZE blank.

                         

                        So I’m not trying to distract or trick people, but many times I  don’t know what the “fair” description would be of my caches would be.

                         

                        Seeking clarity,

                         

                        .Quad  (aka Courtney)

                         

                         

                        Thanks,

                        Courtney CC Calkins, LMFT

                        (530)893-4245

                         

                        CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:  This e-mail transmission, and any documents or messages attached to it, may contain confidential information that is legally privileged.  If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering this e-mail to the intended recipient, then you are (1) notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, saving, reading or use of this information is strictly prohibited, (2) requested to discard and delete this e-mail and any attachments, and (3) requested to immediately notify us by e-mail that you mistakenly received this message Courtney@...  fax (530) 879-3712 or telephone (530) 893-4245.  Thank you.

                         

                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.